Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
United States-Based Multinational Corporations Should Be Tried In The United States For Their Extraterritorial Toxic Torts, Dianna B. Shew
United States-Based Multinational Corporations Should Be Tried In The United States For Their Extraterritorial Toxic Torts, Dianna B. Shew
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
When a foreign plaintiff sues a United States-based multinational for damages resulting from an extraterritorial toxic tort, the case should be tried in United States courts. The courts are assured of personal jurisdiction as long as there are sufficient contacts between the foreign subsidiary and the United States. Dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens is not desirable because the United States has a vested interest in monitoring and even influencing the behavior of multinationals that do business within its borders. The requisite "adequate alternative forum" is simply not available in some countries. In addition, despite their case backload, United …
Case Digest, Journal Staff
Case Digest, Journal Staff
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
Case Digest--
Spouse of Injured Seaman May Recover Damages for Loss of Society under Maritime Common Law
Federal District Court Lacks Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 over Fraud Action Brought by Alien when Claim Fails to Implicate a Treaty or Body of Rules Governing Relations between Foreign States
Jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Requires at Least a Finding of International Shoe "Minimum Contacts"
Appellate Court will not Review the Post-Settlement Appeal of a Pre-Settlement Provisional Remedy without District Court Consideration of the Intervening Events
Foreign States are Subject to Liability for Non-Commercial Torts arising from the Commercial …
The Harris V. Taylor Phoenix, Bradford A. Caffrey
The Harris V. Taylor Phoenix, Bradford A. Caffrey
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
One of the most remarkable aspects of Harris v. Taylor, a decision which has been described as "revolting to common sense" and, somewhat more diplomatically, as "unfortunate"' is the fact that it has taken sixty-four years for the question raised therein to come before the Court of Appeal again. In the intervening years, it has suffered, somewhat unjustly, critical attacks resulting from misapprehension as to what happened and what was decided in that case.
Harris v. Taylor is a classic example of a case properly decided but for the wrong reasons. The plaintiff, domiciled in the Isle of Man, brought …